ArticleCureus2019
Far Lateral Tubular Decompression: A Case Series Studying One and Two Year Outcomes with Predictors of Failure.
Article in Cureus, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Rates of achieving meaningful outcomes after undergoing minimally-invasive far lateral tubular decompression.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2025Article
- Comparison of Outcomes of Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Full-endoscopic Laminectomy for L5 Radiculopathy Caused by Lumbar Foraminal Stenosis.Neurologia medico-chirurgica · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction The optimal surgical treatment of isolated lumbar foraminal stenosis has not been defined. Minimally invasive decompression of the foramen from a far lateral tubular decompression (FLTD) approach has been shown to not only have minimal morbidity but also highly variable success rates at short-term follow-up. It is important to quantify improvement and define the demographic and radiographic parameters that predict failure in this promising, minimally invasive surgical technique. This study investigates pain and disability score improvement following FLTD at 12 and 24 months and investigates associations with failure. Methods All patients who underwent lumbar FLTD by a single surgeon at a single institution from September 2015 to January 2018 were included in this prospective case series. Visual analog scale (VAS) for back pain and leg pain and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) were collected preoperatively and at the 12- and 24- month follow-ups. Outcomes between visits were fitted to a linear mixed-effects model. The univariate analysis investigated demographic, radiographic, and operative associations with subsequent open revision. Results A total of 42 patients were included in this study. Back pain (VAS 5.84 to 3.32, p<0.001), leg pain (VAS 7.33 to 2.71, p<0.001), and ODI (48.97 to 28.50, p<0.001) demonstrated significant improvements at the 12-month follow-up. Back pain (VAS 3.71, p=0.004), leg pain (VAS 3.04, p<0.001), and ODI (30.63, p<0.001) improvements were maintained at 24-month follow-up. Four patients (9.5%) required subsequent open revision. Subsequent open revision was associated with prior spine surgery (RR=2.85 (2.07-3.63), p=0.045) and scoliosis ≥10° (RR=6.33 (4.87-7.80), p=0.013). Conclusion Back pain, leg pain, and ODI showed significant improvement postoperatively. Improvement is maintained at two years. Prior spine surgery and scoliosis ≥ 10° may be relative contraindications to FLTD.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.